Central Line Bong Sau vs. Center Line Bong Sau

[Happy Tiger]

Ok... Normally I don't weigh in on **** like this but I think the issue, over is the deployment of The T Step. Ya'll are actually really picking up on the value of inertia. The T step puts in a tough spot. If your limbic system can't handle it then I guess you don't get to play with it yet.,😀

[KPM]

Here is a better example that clearly shows that the stepping is on the perimeter of a circle and not directly sideways:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g0HV1mat18


And here is another example. Clearly not a linear step:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFLqbtmmSwU


As I said, LFJ has been criticizing something he knows nothing about. Which is something that he has come down on other people for numerous times in the past!

[Happy Tiger]

Every time a great master. Has a well​ meaning student.hide their flaw,their folly every one sufferes

[Sihing73]

Here is a better example that clearly shows that the stepping is on the perimeter of a circle and not directly sideways:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g0HV1mat18


And here is another example. Clearly not a linear step:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFLqbtmmSwU


As I said, LFJ has been criticizing something he knows nothing about. Which is something that he has come down on other people for numerous times in the past!

While I will agree that it is angular I would not necessarily agree that it is circular.
If pressed for a geometric shape I would tend to lean more towards a triangle rather than a circle.
Think of the steps in the beginning of the wooden dummy where you step off the line and come in at an angle. Would you consider that to be circular?
The T-Step seems seems similar to the Bong, it is transitional and in my opinion angular rather than circular.

I recall a drill I used to train where from the YJKM I would step forward into a Bic Bo and the goal was to drive into the opponent following a straight line from you to them. While the leading leg did follow a circular path to go from horse to Bic Bo or Front stance, it was not a "circular" step.

Thoughts????

[KPM]

While I will agree that it is angular I would not necessarily agree that it is circular. If pressed for a geometric shape I would tend to lean more towards a triangle rather than a circle.

---But you will agree it most certainly is not a linear step to the side??!!! I agree that it is angular. That is the whole point!....getting an angle on the opponent rather than facing him "straight on." And now that you have seen a better example, would you agree that Phil is stepping at an angle and not straight to the side? Phil is actually closer to stepping on the circle than the other examples I posted. Its all a matter of degree. Phil is not closing because his opponent is coming towards him. In the other videos the opponent is stationary and they are moving in. So they are angling inward from the circle. Conceptually you see the opponent as standing in the center of a half circle with yourself standing on the periphery. That way every point on the half circle is equidistant from the opponent and is therefore a gauge of your distance. You never step away from the opponent, you step along that circle unless you close with the opponent. Then you step in at an angle off of the circle.


Think of the steps in the beginning of the wooden dummy where you step off the line and come in at an angle. Would you consider that to be circular?


---We see the movement around the dummy in the same way. The dummy is at the center and you are moving around the half circle in front of it. At times you angle into the dummy on the 45 degree line. But in the TWC dummy form, you also stay with "feet parallel" to the dummy on that same 45 degree line at times.


The T-Step seems seems similar to the Bong, it is transitional and in my opinion angular rather than circular.

---Absolutely the T step is transitional! If you paused in the middle when your feet are close together you might be in trouble! It is a very quick "two stage" step. A circle is simply lots of angles combined together. If the angle of the T step is relatively shallow, it stays on the circle. If the T step is deeper and more towards the opponent then it cuts in at an angle. The whole point is to flank the opponent so you are not meeting him "head on." It most certainly is not a step directly to the side that takes you away from the opponent....unless you are trying to get away from him and that is your intent!


I recall a drill I used to train where from the YJKM I would step forward into a Bic Bo and the goal was to drive into the opponent following a straight line from you to them. While the leading leg did follow a circular path to go from horse to Bic Bo or Front stance, it was not a "circular" step.

---Yes, that's a different step. Sometimes called a "Biu Ma" or "thrusting horse" because the intent is to drive into the opponent's center as you stated. But the T step is designed to move you off the line of attack and form a new line with opponent before he can readjust. So you end up aimed at his center while he is aimed away from yours. You can see that clearly in each of the videos, including the one of Phil! It isn't driving into the opponent's center. It is flanking the opponent.

[LFJ]

his lead foot does move off of the line that LFJ drew. It moves forward.

The straight line starts at mid-foot and ends at mid-foot directly to the side of where it started, and perpendicular to the incoming attack line. He didn't step forward or angle on anything.

This is not as clear an example of the TWC T step as could be shown, because Phil's opponent is moving towards him. So he doesn't have to move forward very much. But he is definitely not simply stepping straight to the side.

He's stepping to the side. If his intention was to step forward, it was obviously cut off by the opponent adjusting his direction on the second attack. Phil was unable to get around him, what's likely to happen when you stop fighting mannequins.

Here is a better example that clearly shows that the stepping is on the perimeter of a circle and not directly sideways:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g0HV1mat18


And here is another example. Clearly not a linear step:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFLqbtmmSwU


As I said, LFJ has been criticizing something he knows nothing about.

Like this step is difficult to comprehend, lol! Too bad that's not at all what Phil did!

---But you will agree it most certainly is not a linear step to the side??!!!

And now that you have seen a better example, would you agree that Phil is stepping at an angle and not straight to the side?

lol, seriously? A better example doesn't change Phil's steps.

You can't say look at these two guys taking sharp corners; now do you believe Phil's linear sidestep is also taking a corner?

Of course not! — doesn't stop being — because you show us L.

[KPM]

Like this step is difficult to comprehend, lol! Too bad that's not at all what Phil did!

.

Its all a T step. Just watch the first 10 seconds of Phil's clip again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRgn...ature=youtu.be

[guy b.]

While I will agree that it is angular I would not necessarily agree that it is circular. If pressed for a geometric shape I would tend to lean more towards a triangle rather than a circle.

---But you will agree it most certainly is not a linear step to the side??!!! I agree that it is angular. That is the whole point!....getting an angle on the opponent rather than facing him "straight on." And now that you have seen a better example, would you agree that Phil is stepping at an angle and not straight to the side? Phil is actually closer to stepping on the circle than the other examples I posted. Its all a matter of degree. Phil is not closing because his opponent is coming towards him. In the other videos the opponent is stationary and they are moving in. So they are angling inward from the circle. Conceptually you see the opponent as standing in the center of a half circle with yourself standing on the periphery. That way every point on the half circle is equidistant from the opponent and is therefore a gauge of your distance. You never step away from the opponent, you step along that circle unless you close with the opponent. Then you step in at an angle off of the circle.

Why are you so keen to get people to share in your wrongness?

[KPM]

Why are you so keen to get people to share in your wrongness?

Its not wrong. But how would you know? You've never studied TWC and, like LFJ, your only exposure is watching a few youtube videos. Most people are here to discuss and share what they know about Wing Chun. What are you here for??

[guy b.]

Its not wrong. But how would you know? You've never studied TWC and, like LFJ, your only exposure is watching a few youtube videos

It isn't necessary to study TWC to see what happens in the clip. It simply is what it is. You need to make a different argument because the clip clearly shows a step to the side.

This is not analagous to someone watching a clip of PB doing chi sau and assuming it is application when it is not. The TWC sequence here is clearly application.

What I don't understand is why you find it important to plead for support and make things personal all the time. It is as if facts matter less than popularity to you? Not something I really understand and was just commenting because a particularly clear example of it here.

Please carry on.

[KPM]

It isn't necessary to study TWC to see what happens in the clip. It simply is what it is. You need to make a different argument because the clip clearly shows a step to the side.

This is not analagous to someone watching a clip of PB doing chi sau and assuming it is application when it is not. The TWC sequence here is clearly application.

What I don't understand is why you find it important to plead for support and make things personal all the time. It is as if facts matter less than popularity to you? Not something I really understand and was just commenting because a particularly clear example of it here.

Please carry on.

What I don't understand is why you and LFJ feel the need to turn everything into an argument. I have clearly explained that the T step is a two stage step. The rear foot moves laterally to come up behind the lead foot, then the lead foot steps out. It can step straight forward to "cut the circle" and move in, or it can step out along the perimeter of the circle to maintain the same distance. But the T step as a whole is not a step directly to the side. And that should be clear to anyone watching those videos that doesn't already have a pre-determined opinion and a subconscious need to see anything that is different from WSLVT as being "wrong" or somehow "broken." Because there is a particularly clear example of that here.

[guy b.]

What I don't understand is why you and LFJ feel the need to turn everything into an argument. I have clearly explained that the T step is a two stage step. The rear foot moves laterally to come up behind the lead foot, then the lead foot steps out. It can step straight forward to "cut the circle" and move in, or it can step out along the perimeter of the circle to maintain the same distance. But the T step as a whole is not a step directly to the side. And that should be clear to anyone watching those videos that doesn't already have a pre-determined opinion and a subconscious need to see anything that is different from WSLVT as being "wrong" or somehow "broken." Because there is a particularly clear example of that here.

I guess you should have chosen a better example to start your discussion of this, because in the first clip you posted the step is to the side.

[KPM]

I guess you should have chosen a better example to start your discussion of this, because in the first clip you posted the step is to the side.

Still arguing??

[Sihing73]

I have clearly explained that the T step is a two stage step. The rear foot moves laterally to come up behind the lead foot, then the lead foot steps out. It can step straight forward to "cut the circle" and move in, or it can step out along the perimeter of the circle to maintain the same distance. But the T step as a whole is not a step directly to the side. And that should be clear to anyone watching those videos that doesn't already have a pre-determined opinion and a subconscious need to see anything that is different from WSLVT as being "wrong" or somehow "broken." Because there is a particularly clear example of that here.

I am sorry but the clip, with the lines drawn to illustrate the step would seem to indicate that the lead foot does not step forward but does indees step to the side. Just watch the clip and see where both the front and rear legs are in relation to the green lines. It seems pretty obvious that neither foot steps forward but move parallel along the same lines to the side. The opponent steps forward and closes the distance.

I agree that the T Step is a two step process but you yourself have said the foot can step along the perimter of a circle, which would include stepping to the side as an option.

I do not see the necessity of continuing in this vein as Phil could still be using a T Step if he is stepping to the side. Although it may be better if he angled forward off to the side, still the point of the demo, as I see it is regarding the Bong Sau and not the step.

Perhaps a better discussion would be whether the Bong Sau provides the needed structure to deal with the incoming energy of the punch???

[guy b.]

Still arguing??

I don't think that describing reality could be honestly characterised as "turning everything into an argument".